Offences Done by or Related to Public Servants

Nisman Parpia

Public servants lend a hand in ensuring that the undertakings by the government are carried out steadily. They are held accountable for all the activities, investigations and protocols that are in relation to court proceedings and administration of justice. Public authorities along with the Judiciary are called the guardians of justice who follow all the procedures and instructions laid down by the law of the country with an impartial nature. When public servants commit an offence, it leads to chaos and disturbance. The progress of the country depends on the sincerity of public servants. Let us study more about them.

Who are public servants?

1. The Press Council Act, 1965 states-

Every member of the Council and every officer appointed by the council shall be deemed to be public servant.

1. According to The Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966

Section 6(3) – Every Chief inspector and inspector shall be deemed to be public servants.

1. The Civil Defence Act, 1968

Section 19 states – Authorised persons and members of the corps are to be public servants.

1.  The Gold Control Act, 1968
2. Section 1. — Provides that the Administrator, a Gold Control Officer and any person authorised by the Administrator or the Central Government and performing any functions under this Act shall be deemed to be public servants.
3. The Insecticides Act, 1968

Section 20(2). —Every Insecticide Inspector shall be deemed to be a public servant.

1. The Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969

Section 26. — All Registrars and Sub-Registrars shall while acting or purporting to act in pursuance of this Act be deemed to be public servants.

1. The Khuda Baksh Oriental Public Library Act, 1969

Section 25. — Officers and employees of the Board are public servants.

1. The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969

Section 63. — All members of the Commission, the Director and the Registrar and every member of the staff of the Commission are to be public servants.

1. The Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970

Section 14. — Every custodian of a corresponding new bank is deemed to be a public servant.

Section 21 of the Indian penal code defined public servants.

• All the members of Jury, members of Panchayat, evaluators assisting the court of Justice.
• The officer who is responsible for conducting elections and amending electoral rolls.
• An arbitrator to whom the matter is referred by a court of law.
• Officers who have the responsibility for providing information on offences.
• Officers who are responsible for preventing offences.
• Officers responsible for bringing criminals to justice.
• Any person who has been assigned a government task in exchange for payment, appointed to the service of authorities set up under government acts, in the capacity of a public duty.
• Officers who are in charge of the government for holding of property as an important part of their duty in order to conduct assessments, surveys, investigations and to report on the government’s pecuniary interests.
• A commissioned officer in the armed forces.
• A judge who individually or with the help of a body of members is empowered to carry out adjudicatory functions.
• The officers of the court who have been assigned the responsibility for investigation and making reports on matters of law for authenticating information and providing important details.
• An authority who has been empowered to put people in confinement.
• Officers assigned with the duty to hold, dispense, or take property for the welfare of the public and for assessment or levying of tax.^[1]

Offences done by or related to Public servants

The offences by or relating to public servants have been included in chapter IX of the Indian Penal Code which includes 6 sections. The chapter distinguishes two types of offences:

1. Which includes offences committed by public servants alone.
2. Which includes offences concerning public servants.

Section 161 to 165 has been removed from the court by the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and has been incorporated with an enhanced penalty into the Act of 1988. The sections in relation to offences committed by public servants start from the section 166.

Section 166

This section includes intentional disobedience by a public servant with an intention of causing an injury to a person including some breach of statutory duty.

Section 166A deals with duties of a public servant while conducting an investigation.

Section 166 A clause (a) explains that a public servant who knowingly disobeys any order that prohibits him from requiring the attendance at a particular place of any person for investigation into an offence or other matters of relevance, shall be punished.

Section 166 A Clause (b) depicts that when a public servant knowingly disobeys, to the prejudice of any person, or any other direction of law that regulates the manner in which he shall conduct such investigation shall also be punishable.

Section 166 A Clause (c) provides that a public servant, failing to record any important information given to him under certain sections shall be liable to be punished.

Illustration: If Mr F, being a police officer purposely fails to record some statements from an offender in prison, Mr F shall be liable for punishment under this section.

Punishment

The punishment for the above clauses is rigorous imprisonment for a term not less than six months, which may extend up to 2 years with fine.

Section 166B

This section upholds punishment for non-treatment of the victim, punishing any person in charge of a hospital.

• whether the hospital as public or private
• Whether it is run by local bodies or any person.
• Whether it is run by the Central or State government.

The punishment may extend to one year Imprisonment or fine or both.

Section 167

This section deals with a public servant who frames an incorrect document with the intention to cause injury. It includes tampering of documents required by the persons charged with the duty of preparing them which in return is an egregious offence punishable under this section.

Section 168

Section 168 punishes those public servants who are legally refrained to not engage in any trade or commercial activities. The public servants will not only neglect their legitimate duties but will also take undue advantages of their authority and position over other rival traders. By engaging in trade, they are not able to devote their undivided attention to their formal work.

The word trade in ordinary sense means exchange of goods and services for money or exchanging goods with the object of making profit. According to this section public servants are only restricted from trading and are allowed to lay out their savings to advantage which includes lending money on interest which is not unlawfully engaged in trade. This section also forbids a public servant from buying or bidding for property, he is legally obligated to not buy.

Case Law:

In the case of State of Gujarat v. Mahesh Kumar Dhirajlal Thakkar^[2], the respondent here entered into an agreement with the Administration of railways to not engage in trade but for the main purpose of receiving training so that after completing the training he could be employed by the railway administration. The fact that he was paid a stipend during the training period (apprentice) did not make him an employee of the railway administration, the agreement did state that the railway administration did not bind itself to employ him on the completion of the training. It was confirmed that the act of the accused respondent did not amount to engaging in trade. Even If more emphasis were to be put on the word trade, the engagement of the respondent as an apprentice-trainee would not bring him within the scope of the expression ‘trade’.

Punishment

The punishment under this section includes a fine of Rs.1000 or imprisonment for the duration of three months or fine or both.

Section 169

This section deals with public servants who unlawfully buys or bids for property. The prohibition must be in respect of property with which the public servant has been connected surrounding his official capacity of which he can gain advantage.

So, in the case of Rajkristo Biswas, a sub inspector of Police in charge of a station house was charged with having bought a pony which had been impounded at the station, and it seemed that he had, in fact held no sale but falsely reported that a sale had been held and the pony sold to another party, from whom he alleged to have purchased it. It was held that the accused should have then been convicted under this section and not for breach of trust of which he was convicted.

Section 170

This deals with impersonating a public servant, committing any fraudulent act done in the guise of a public servant, pretending to hold any office or alleging that he/she is a public servant when he/she is not. It includes:

1. A person claiming to hold a particular office posing as a public servant, knowing that he or she does not hold that office. For Example- Mr. J, a common man knowing he is not a public servant, pretends to act like a commissioned officer of armed forces, on purpose with an intention or a purpose in mind.

2. Falsely identifying any other person who holds that office. For example- Mr J, pretending to be Mr. H who is already a commissioned officer of armed forces by falsely taking his identity.

3. A person of such presumed nature who performs or even attempts to perform and act under the colour of such an office.

Illustration: If Mr. T, an ordinary man, wears a police uniform and pretends to be a police officer, taking fine from people in the colour of his office, or even impersonates a real police officer, he will be charged and punished under this section for pretending to hold a public office and taking advantage of so.

Pretending to hold an office or a position

It is a heinous offence to do or to try to do an act under the pretext of the office that person is posing to hold, here it is mandatory for the accused to know that he did not actually hold the office, he was only pretending to do so.

Section 171

This section depicts that it is punishable to wear a garb or to carry some object similar to garb or token which is used officially by the class of public servants. Here the accused must-

1. Have the intention of posing as a public servant.
2. Wear the garb.
3. Display the token.

Note: There is no necessity for some act to be done or attempted to be done in the supposed garb.

The punishment includes imprisonment of either description for a term extending to three months along with fine which may extend to Rs.200 or both.

Malicious prosecution

It means the deliberate initiation of false charges against an individual intending to dishonour or demean him and subjecting him to court proceedings for something he has never done.

The Supreme Court held in S.A. Venkataraman vs The Union Of India And Another^[3] on 30 March, 1954 that any public servant could not claim protection of punishment against prosecution. It has been noticed that protection in the cases of corruption has transformed into delayed prosecution. In such cases the difference between a maliciously framed honest public servant and a corrupt official sanctioned protection under the section was made. The conclusion in reference to the extent of protection given to these authorities during the discharge of their duties, depends on the facts of the case along with the evidence. The question of punishment may be asked at any time during the proceedings and thus it is mandatory to determine the applicability of its sanctions from one stage to another.

Some Landmark cases:

1. Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Dr. Manmohan Singh and Another^[4]

In 2012, it was decided by the Supreme Court that in order to have public servants carrying out their official duty in a fair manner without any bias, impartiality or prejudice, the threats of malicious prosecution shall be prevented in various ways accepted by our law. It however does not nullify the possibility of corruption in public offices which made the court enlist provisions in the public interests. Article 14 of the Constitution of India gives everyone the right to equality which would be violated if special treatment would be given to public servants, but it is also an exception to this provision (protective discrimination). The procedural provisions are required to be etched out in a manner as to advance honesty and justice with better governance against ever-increasing corruption.

1. Bajinath And Ors v. State of MP^[5] (2016)

Here the Supreme Court noted that under Section 197(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the offences committed by public servants do not necessarily require penalties for prosecution. The act performed while engaging in official duties could be claimed by virtue of office and it would regard punishment as a necessary constituent. The quality of act claimed that protection is within the scope of official duties and extended to those officials referred to in the section, where nature of the offence is not related to public servants’ official duties, the protection given under such circumstances shall not rise.

1. The case of Matajog Dobey v. H.C Bhari,^[6] 1955 was a case in which the appellant claimed that the official of the income tax department forcibly broke into the apartment and searched all the drawers of the house trying to investigate. The appellant said that the officials were tied up and beaten and so the magistrate issued a prima facie case proceeding. The court stated that all public servants are to be protected from harassment in relation to prosecution for an offence while they discharge their official duties. There should also be a reasonable link between discharging of duties and the act for which he/she is charged with zero pretentious claims.

Conclusion

Every individual in India is equally protected by law as enlisted in our constitution so that any kind of unfair treatment given to a certain privileged person is dismissed. Public servants and judicial officers are excluded from the mandate to prosecute crimes committed while in office. The effectiveness shown by public servants will boost a country’s progress as they manage the country and help in giving justice to citizens thus protecting their rights. In this way, both sides have been ensured that they are secured and protected, and that the nation can progress in an exemplary manner. The public should realise that the public servants work for their protection and should always cooperate with them in various procedures like investigation. The nation will go down in terms of its progress if public servants become dishonest, because the enemies would be within the country. The sections under chapter X of the Indian Penal Code could be more effective, if necessary, amendments are brought in.

1. Shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/(accessed on 29th September,2020) ↑
2. State of Gujaratv. Mahesh Kumar Dhirajlal Thakkar AIR 1980 SC 1167 ↑
3. S.A. Venkataraman vs The Union of India And Another, 1954 SCR 1150 ↑
4. Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Dr. Manmohan Singh and Another (2012) 3 SCC 64 ↑
5. Bajinath And Ors v. State of MP (2016) INSC 797 ↑
6. Matajog Dobey v. H.C Bhari 1956 AIR 44 ↑

References

• http://lawtimesjournal.in/offences-by-or-relating-to-public-servants/
• https://lawbhoomi.com/offences-relating-to-public-servants-in-india-with-landmark-cases/
• https://blog.ipleaders.in/prosecution-offences-committed-judges-public-servants/
• http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/pserv.htm
• https://devgan.in/ipc/chapter_09.php#s161
• Shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/(accessed on 29th September,2020)
• Blog.ipleaders.in/prosecution-offences-committed-judges-public-servants/ (accessed on 29th September,2020)
• https://indiankanoon.org/doc/570574/